1986-12-31_REPORT - C1981008 (3)

Home Browse Search

Because surface water flow monitoring, quality sampling, preservation and analysis techniques used at the Nucla Mine have changed slightly from those described in the Nucla Mine permit, a discussion is provided here to update this portion of the permit. Table 2, previously cited, indicates the methodology used at each of the surface water monitoring sites for measuring flow. Table 3 lists the parameters for which the collected water samples are analyzed and the frequency at which the samples are to be collected. Table 4 indicates the sample type, preservative and bottle type necessary for analysis of the particular constituents shown. Raw and/or raw/acidified water samples are taken from the sampling site and placed directly into properly prepared sample bottles. Portions of the samples to be field filtered are forced through a 0.45 micron membrane filter using a Skougstaad plastic filter barrel and pressurized nitrogen gas and are then run directly into the sample bottle. All sample bottles are immediately placed in an iced cooler and delivered to a certified contract laboratory at the end of the day. EPA approved water analysis holding times are met for all analyses indicated on Table 5. Field parameters of pH, conductivity and temperature are always taken in the field at the time of sampling. On an annual basis, this field equipment is tested against similar equipment used in an EPA certified laboratory. On December 16, 1986, Dennis Jones, Seneca II Mine Hydrologist, tested the field equipment used at both Nucla and Seneca Mines against the equipment used by Bookcliffs Laboratory in Steamboat Springs. Temperature and pH measured exactly the same as that of the lab equipment. Conductivity measured exactly the same as the lab's conductivity at 700 ,umhos/cm at 25°C, -2.8% at 1400 umhos/cm at 25°C, and -2.3% at 2700 umhos/cm at 25°C. As a result, the field equipment used at both the Nucla and the Seneca Mines appears to be accurately calibrated and in excellent condition. At this point in the discussion, two clarifications of the monitoring program need to be presented and one deficiency needs to be addressed. The first clarification involves Peabody's historic 10 Revised 03/06/87